Zhen v. Del Toro

W.D. Washington

Zhen v. Del Toro

DecidedSeptember 25, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05684

StatusUnknown

This text of Zhen v. Del Toro (Zhen v. Del Toro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zhen v. Del Toro, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JIANHAO ZHEN, CASE NO. 25-5684-BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 CARLOS DEL TORO, 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David Christel’s Order 14 granting pro se plaintiff Zhen’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 4, 15 leaving to this Court evaluation of whether Zhen’s proposed complaint, Dkt. 5, asserts a 16 plausible claim and should be served. 17 Zhen’s proposed complaint asserts employment discrimination claims against the 18 Navy on the basis of his race. Dkt. 5. He acknowledges that he has a related case before 19 this Court, No. 24-CV-5746-BHS, which asserts similar claims against Secretary Del 20 Toro. 21 The Court ordered Zhen to show cause as to why the two cases should not be 22 consolidated. Dkt. 8. 1 Zhen responds that the earlier filed case is about the Navy’s firing of him in July 2 2023, whereas this case is about the “stressful work environment against [him],” from

3 May 2022 through July 2023. Dkt. 9. However, he does not object to the Court’s 4 consolidation of the two cases. Id. at 2. 5 Rule 42 permits a court to consolidate or join for trial matters that “involve a 6 common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “To determine whether to 7 consolidate, a court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for 8 delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” Sw. Marine, Inc. v. Triple A

9 Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 10 The Court concludes consolidation is appropriate here. The cases involve common 11 facts that occurred over a similar time frame. All future filings should be made in the 12 earlier filed case, No. 24-CV-5746. Because the Navy has already appeared and answered 13 in that case, Zhen may file a motion for leave to amend his complaint by October 6, 2025.

14 This matter shall be CONSOLIDATED with the earlier filed case, No. 24-CV- 15 5746. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated this 25th day of September, 2025. A 18 19 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 20 United States District Judge 21

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JIANHAO ZHEN, CASE NO. 25-5684-BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 CARLOS DEL TORO, 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David Christel’s Order 14 granting pro se plaintiff Zhen’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 4, 15 leaving to this Court evaluation of whether Zhen’s proposed complaint, Dkt. 5, asserts a 16 plausible claim and should be served. 17 Zhen’s proposed complaint asserts employment discrimination claims against the 18 Navy on the basis of his race. Dkt. 5. He acknowledges that he has a related case before 19 this Court, No. 24-CV-5746-BHS, which asserts similar claims against Secretary Del 20 Toro. 21 The Court ordered Zhen to show cause as to why the two cases should not be 22 consolidated. Dkt. 8. 1 Zhen responds that the earlier filed case is about the Navy’s firing of him in July 2 2023, whereas this case is about the “stressful work environment against [him],” from

3 May 2022 through July 2023. Dkt. 9. However, he does not object to the Court’s 4 consolidation of the two cases. Id. at 2. 5 Rule 42 permits a court to consolidate or join for trial matters that “involve a 6 common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “To determine whether to 7 consolidate, a court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for 8 delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” Sw. Marine, Inc. v. Triple A

9 Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 10 The Court concludes consolidation is appropriate here. The cases involve common 11 facts that occurred over a similar time frame. All future filings should be made in the 12 earlier filed case, No. 24-CV-5746. Because the Navy has already appeared and answered 13 in that case, Zhen may file a motion for leave to amend his complaint by October 6, 2025.

14 This matter shall be CONSOLIDATED with the earlier filed case, No. 24-CV- 15 5746. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated this 25th day of September, 2025. A 18 19 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 20 United States District Judge 21

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zhen v. Del Toro, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zhen-v-del-toro-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack